Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Mirada bicycle path
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed - article summarily deleted as A3, no content. Creation of an article with content is not prejudiced against. WilyD 13:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- La Mirada bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is in fact no content: it's just a place-holder, really. Going back years. Odd. I would have speedied it, per A3. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete No content. If someone wants to do a write up that would be okay. Might be best in a combined article... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Incomplete article, just started today, give it a chance to develop. Theis needs tagging, not deletion. ,05:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: this should be a candidate for speedy deletion as it has almost zero content. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.